Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vb7309$3b4ub$9@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!uucp.uio.no!fnord.no!news1.firedrake.org!nntp.terraraq.uk!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news.in-chemnitz.de!news.swapon.de!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2024 08:29:45 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 68 Message-ID: <vb7309$3b4ub$9@dont-email.me> References: <vb4plc$2tqeg$1@dont-email.me> <vb4u1g$2u7sn$4@dont-email.me> <vb5drq$30qlu$1@dont-email.me> <vb6d25$38dum$2@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2024 15:29:46 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f5540fbd60b9a9e7d5f7c4b40526c50b"; logging-data="3511243"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/0FiDd3gqqz2CdG+VakU2U" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:aMAsQEK0Vf9cF2PXZfQ/m2U7EHc= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <vb6d25$38dum$2@dont-email.me> Bytes: 3769 On 9/3/2024 2:15 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: > Op 03.sep.2024 om 00:22 schreef olcott: >> On 9/2/2024 12:52 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>> Op 02.sep.2024 om 18:38 schreef olcott: >>>> A halt decider is a Turing machine that computes >>>> the mapping from its finite string input to the >>>> behavior that this finite string specifies. >>>> >>>> If the finite string machine string machine >>>> description specifies that it cannot possibly >>>> reach its own final halt state then this machine >>>> description specifies non-halting behavior. >>>> >>>> A halt decider never ever computes the mapping >>>> for the computation that itself is contained within. >>>> >>>> Unless there is a pathological relationship between >>>> the halt decider H and its input D the direct execution >>>> of this input D will always have identical behavior to >>>> D correctly simulated by simulating halt decider H. >>>> >>>> *Simulating Termination Analyzer H Not Fooled by Pathological Input D* >>>> https://www.researchgate.net/ >>>> publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D >>>> >>>> A correct emulation of DDD by HHH only requires that HHH >>>> emulate the instructions of DDD** including when DDD calls >>>> HHH in recursive emulation such that HHH emulates itself >>>> emulating DDD. >>> >>> Indeed, it should simulate *itself* and not a hypothetical other HHH >>> with different behaviour. >>> If HHH includes code to see a 'special condition' and aborts and >>> halts, then it should also simulate the HHH that includes this same >>> code and >> >> >> DDD has itself and the emulated HHH stuck in recursive emulation. >> >> void DDD() >> { >> HHH(DDD); >> return; >> } > > It is not DDD. It is HHH that has the problem when trying to simulate > itself. It does this correctly yet beyond your intellectual capacity. _DDD() [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD) [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 [00002182] 5d pop ebp [00002183] c3 ret Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] Instructions from machine address 00002172 through machine address 0000217a are emulated. What instruction of DDD do you believe comes next? -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer